Skip to main content

Carbon Filtration for Reducing Emissions from Chemical Agent Incineration (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Executive Summary
Pages 1-5

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... HRAs have also been conducted by Army contractors for the Anniston and Umatilla facilities in which the effects of adding carbon filters to the baseline incineration system pollution abatement systems were considered, but only in terms of changes in the exhaust gas flow rate and temperature, not reduction in emissions of SOPCs. These studies did not quantitatively evaluate the potential benefits of the PFS, but even without carbon filtration systems, emissions are expected to be below the levels of regulatory concern.
Read the entire page →
From page 2...
... To mitigate the potential adverse consequences of adding carbon filters at Anniston and Umatilla, worker risk should be evaluated quickly and managed effectively, including changing the PFS design, if necessary. The Army's initial attempts at public outreach using its change management process (CMP)
Read the entire page →
From page 3...
... FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The estimated concentrations and emission rates of SOPCs from chemical agent incinerator operations developed during the permitting processes for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility and the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility were below the thresholds of regulatory concern, whether or not a passive carbon filtration system (like the PFS) was included in the facility design.
Read the entire page →
From page 4...
... The Army has evaluated the implications of adding or removing passive carbon filter systems to the baseline incineration systems at the Tooele, Anniston, and Umatilla disposal facilities. Some of the impacts on risk to public health from stack emissions were evaluated by comparing the HRAs for the existing baseline facilities to estimates of the upper bound of public health risk posed by the addition of the PFS.
Read the entire page →
From page 5...
... Future health risk assessments should include estimates of emitted and ambient concentrations of SOPCs, with and without the PFS, for all substances that contribute significantly to the overall risk. Because PFS performance cannot be based on actual measurements, the analysis should consider the implications of reducing emissions to both the method detection limit and the levels indicated by engineering calculations, including quantitative evaluations of the uncertainties associated with each risk estimate.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • worker risk
  • chemical agent
  • public involvement
  • carbon filtration
  • pollution abatement

  • health risk
  • activated carbon
  • pine bluff
  • baseline incineration
  • disposal facility

  • management process
  • agent disposal
  • carbon filter
  • fatality risk
  • change management

  • meaningful public
  • regulatory concern
  • individual public
  • increased risk
  • accidental releases

  • adding carbon
  • cmp public
  • facility life
  • individual worker
  • stack emissions

  • public risk
  • public confidence
  • increased worker
  • total worker
  • anniston chemical


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.